Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Traction energy optimization considering comfort parameter: A case study

in Istanbul metro line
Ahmet Yildiz a, c, *, Oktay Arikan a, Kemal Keskin b
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul 34220, Turkey
b
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir 26480, Turkey
c
Metro Istanbul Co., Istanbul 34220, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The traction system utilizes the significant part of the energy used by a train. Enhancing driving strategies has the
Genetic algorithm potential to significantly increase energy efficiency. This manuscript outlines a train speed profile optimization
Particle swarm optimization strategy and for this, Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) techniques have been
Rail systems
preferred. The goal of proposed method is to determine the optimal speed profile that uses the least amount of
Energy efficiency
Optimization problem
energy at each interstation. First, a train motion simulation model (TMSM) was modeled in Matlab considering
Mathematical modelling the Istanbul M3 Metro Line’s route, vehicles and operating constraints. A driving test was employed to validate
the simulation. Therefore, the simulated running times, energy consumption and regenerative braking energy
differ from the measured ones by an average of 1.24%, 1.70% and 4.4%, respectively. Then, using three case
studies and two different strategies, speed profile optimization was carried out with and without comfort
constraint. Finally, a real train was operated on the M3 Line with a driver using the optimal speed profiles
discovered through simulation. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that the proposed strategy can produce
energy savings of 21.38% and 30% in GA and 22.11% and 30.29% in PSO for with and without comfort
constraint, respectively.

1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation of this study
There is increasing interest in rail transport systems due to their high
carrying capacity, reliability, lack of local emissions and the potential to
reduce the traffic impact of metropolitan transport. However, as the
bulk of citizens use these public transportation systems in daily routine,
there is an urgent needs to be decreased energy consumption in rail
systems [1]. The whole railway system in İstanbul consumes approxi­
mately 400 million kWh of energy annually for rail transportation.
Considering the ongoing metro lines, there is no doubt that this level of
consumption will rise even higher. Due to their high frequency services,
the energy efficiency studies that will be conducted in these systems will
considerably lower their operating costs and help to mitigate carbon
dioxide emissions.
Since there are numerous subsystems in rail systems, studies on
reducing energy consumption vary in the literature. In general, it can be
grouped under two main headings as traction energy consumption and
fixed facilities energy consumption. Traction energy used to move the
train has the largest share in total consumption. For example, as seen in
the energy consumption graph of 2021 for the Istanbul Metro in Fig. 1.
58% of the total energy consumption is traction energy. So as to mini­
mize the traction energy consumption, studies on various subjects such
as energy efficient driving techniques, usage of regenerative braking
energy effectively and time-table optimization have been carried out in
the literature.
In this study, an optimal speed profile has been proposed, which
includes the objectives of reducing traction energy consumption and
increasing passenger comfort at the same time.
1.2. Literature review
When the studies on energy efficient driving techniques are exam­
ined, Howlett theoretically demonstrated the need for maximum
accelerating, cruising, coasting and maximum braking control se­
quences in an eco-driving strategy on a generic line. The Kuhn-Tucker
equation was used to assess the necessary conditions for optimality

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ahmetyldz91@gmail.com (A. Yildiz), oarikan@yildiz.edu.tr (O. Arikan), kkeskin@ogu.edu.tr (K. Keskin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2023.109196
Received 19 October 2022; Received in revised form 5 January 2023; Accepted 5 February 2023
Available online 17 February 2023
0378-7796/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Yildiz et al.
Fig. 1. Istanbul rail transportation system traction energy consumption share
for 2021.
[2]. Wentao et al., using a numerical method, developed an energy
effective operating strategy optimization method for downward seg­
ments of a rail system and reduced energy consumption by 10.90% [3].
Agostinho et al. suggests a Simulated Annealing (SA) algorithm that
reduces traction energy consumption by the speed profile optimization
method, constrained to existing timetable [4]. For driving trains more
energy efficiently, Ziyu et al., suggested an ideal train trajectory plan­
ning approach. Using the DP method, the optimization problem was
solved [5]. To reduce traction energy usage, Gallo et al. developed a
model for optimizing driving speed profiles. As a result of the study, it
was revealed that 25% energy saving was achieved [6]. Lin et al., in [7],
created the multiple-point combinatorial optimization problem while
taking multiple-point coasting control into account. Using information
from the Shanghai metro, a GA is employed to solve this issue. By
employing a multi-population genetic algorithm (MPGA) to optimize
train operation for several stops, Youneng et al., suggested an
energy-efficient method to reduce traction energy consumption [8].
Wang et al., presented a novel regional reinforcement artificial bee
colony (RR-ABC) algorithm to search the optimal speed profile with
coast mode [9]. Keskin and Karamancioglu developed optimal train
operating strategies using three meta-heuristic algorithms inspired by
nature, Genetic Simulated Annealing, Firefly and Big Bang Big Crunch,
and compared the algorithm’s problem-solving abilities from various
perspectives [10]. Unlike the others, the goal of this study [11] is to
create an eco-driving model to provide effective driving commands
while taking climatological uncertainty into account. A GA was used to
solve the optimization problem while fuzzy numbers were used to
describe the uncertainty in temperature, pressure and wind. There is an
inverse relationship between travel time and energy use. In this situa­
tion, optimal driving techniques can be determined by establishing a
balance between energy consumption and time. Bocharnikov, described
a strategy for optimizing traction energy consumption during a single
train trip by balancing decreases in energy against increments in trav­
elling time. The study allowed to explore the trade-off between energy
conservation and faster trip by designing a fitness function with
adjustable weights [12]. Parking and waiting times caused by red lights
on trams increase energy use and reduce passenger comfort. In [13], a
speed trajectory optimization method for trams that don’t park at red
lights is proposed. The experimental findings demonstrate that the speed
trajectory optimization strategy can decrease overall energy consump­
tion by 23.46% while enhancing passenger comfort.
The majority of earlier work on railway energy efficiency was
simulation-based, despite the fact that the theory of energy-efficient
driving has been researched for a long time. Only a small number of
the findings have been tested and put into use. Ignacio et al., have
developed a computer model to calculate speed profiles that will reduce
energy use in the Valencia metro network under manual motoring. It has
2
Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196
been shown that when trains are driven with the recommended optimal
speed profile, they provide a large reduction in net energy consumption
of approximately 16-26% [14]. Zhongbei et al. optimized the speed
trajectories of trains using an improved Brute Force search algorithm to
reduce traction energy consumption. The lineside driving control
signage, which indicates the optimal coasting points, was placed on the
Edinburgh tram line and optimal driving was performed with a driver.
Compared to standard driving, the suggested optimal driving reduced
traction energy consumption by around 15% [15]. A speed profile
optimization method is proposed in [16] based on the Ant Colony Al­
gorithm. The proposed optimum speed profile has been confirmed by
field studies on the Beijing Yizhuang subway line, where it can save up
to 8.64% in energy use with almost the same running time.
Two significant energy-saving ways, which are directly tied to the
train timetable and driving strategy, are decreasing traction energy and
enhancing regeneration energy. An integrated scheduling strategy was
suggested by Shuai et al., to operate multiple trains with minimal energy
consumption. The proposed approach integrates effective usage of
regenerative energy with time-table optimization and eco-driving. It has
been demonstrated that, in comparison to the single train optimization
strategy, the system’s energy consumption may be decreased by 2.2%
and 3.3% for off-peak and rush hour, respectively [17]. Pei et al. studied
the time-table problem in a subway system. In order to utilise regener­
ative braking energy as efficiently as possible, a nonlinear integer pro­
gramming model is developed. In this study, an efficient algorithm is
created to get the most suitable train schedules. It has been demon­
strated through testing that by adjusting the time-table, the usage rate of
regenerative braking energy can be raised to 81.8% [18]. By changing
the dwell times, operating times, and turnaround times of multiple
trains, a schedule optimization model is built in [19] for efficient use of
energy. Similar work is discussed in [20] by Zhao et al. The distributed
model predictive control algorithm (DMPC), which is used in this paper
[21] to resolve the energy-saving train regulation problem, is examined.
Regenerative braking energy can also be utilized effectively thanks to
energy storage systems such as on-board or wayside. Leon ve Steven, by
using GA search method, optimized the speed profiles by combining
coasting and regenerative braking with wayside energy-saving systems.
As a result, 14.3% and 24.5% energy saving for off-peak and peak
operation were achieved [22]. Flywheel energy storage system (FESS)
was preferred to reduce the energy consumption by using real-time
speed and acceleration data in [23]. In [24], it is presented a com­
bined optimization of speed and voltage profiles for a supercapacitor
hybrid electric tram to minimize energy consumption. Besides energy
efficiency, time-table optimization can also be done to increase pas­
senger satisfaction. In the study of Renjie et al., by reducing passenger
long waits at the stations, a model for timetable optimization was pro­
posed. Also, a GA is used to resolve the minimization issues in the model.
The study indicates that overall passenger waiting period on the stations
was decreased by 9.3% with data from Guangzhou Metro Line 14. The
findings demonstrate that, in comparison to the conventional timetable,
the suggested model can decrease passenger waiting times and enhance
passenger experience [25].
A brief summary of the research on railroad traction energy effi­
ciency is given in Table 1. The summarized studies are compared in
various aspects such as route parameters, speed limits, optimization
methods and additional constraints considered in the train motion
model.
The comfort assessment standard is provided by the international
standard ISO2631 as stated in Table 2. According to Table 2, the pas­
senger will experience discomfort as soon as the jerk value exceeds 1 m/
s3, and the discomfort level worsens as the jerk value increases [40].
Therefore, in this study, we have assigned a fixed Jerk limit of 0.5 m/s3
for comfortable driving. Studies using different jerk limits are also
available in the literature [41,42].
In this manuscript, it is attempted to optimize a train’s speed profile
in order to lower the energy consumption of the railway systems.
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Table 1
Relevant literature on reducing traction energy consumption (GA, Genetic Algorithm; RFR, Random Forest Regression; PSO, Particle Swarm Optimization; Differential
Evolution DE; BF, Brute Force; DP, Dynamic Programming; GBM, Gradient-Based Method; ABC, Artifical Bee Colony; NDSA, Non-Dominated Sorting Algorithm and
NA, Numerical Algorithm).
Reference Optimization Route Parameters Considered Speed Rotary Comfort Train Motion Real- Additional Considerations
Technique Limits Inertia Criterion Model World
Validation tests
Curves Gradients Tunnel
Resistance

Ozhigin et al. GA X ✓ X ✓ X X X X The time of the trip is also

[26] included into consideration by
optimization algorithm
Huang et al. RFR and SVR ✓ ✓ X ✓ X X ✓ ✓ Integrated heuristic algorithm
[27] based on machine learning to
determine the optimal speed
profile
Chen et al.[28] PSO X ✓ X X X X ✓ X Regenerative braking is
considered in the optimization
model
Fernández- DE and GA ✓ ✓ X ✓ X X X ✓ The performance of the DE
Rodríguez algorithm has been compared
et al.[29] with the GA.
Consideration of different
arrival target times.
Fernández- PSO ✓ ✓ X ✓ X X ✓ X The model considers running
Rodríguez time, being robust to passenger
et al.[30] load variations
Zhao et al.[31] GA and BF ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ X X ✓ A real-world test has been
carried. Optimal inter-station
journey time distribution
Bocharnikov GA X ✓ X ✓ X X X X Compromise between journey
et al.[32] time and energy consumption
Yang et al.[33] DP ✓ ✓ X ✓ X ✓ X X Regenerative energy is
considered to store into on-
board energy storage devices
Xiao et al.[34] DP ✓ ✓ X ✓ X X X X Power flow management
among vehicles are examined
Wang et al.[35] GBM X ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ X Enhanced passenger comfort by
smooth changings in
acceleration and jerk
He et al.[36] GA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X X The optimal time parameters to
minimize the transfer waiting
time were determined while
maximizing the regenerative
energy usage
Yagmur et al. GA and ABC ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ X X ✓ GA and ABC optimization
[37] methods have been preferred to
determine the driving dynamics
of the vehicle and compared
with each other
Ahmadi and NDSA ✓ ✓ X X ✓ ✓ X X The relationship between travel
Dastfan[38] time and energy consumption is
examined
Su et al.[39] NA X ✓ X ✓ X X X X Ensuring efficient use of
regenerative braking energy
between ccoperative trains

were obtained with the GA and PSO search methods. Then, the recom­
Table 2 mended speed profiles were tested under manual driving on the Istanbul
Standard of comfort evaluation.
M3 Metro line. Thus, both field and simulation results were evaluated
Comfort level Jerk (m/s3) Evaluation separately and their outputs were shared.
Level 1 < 0.315 Very comfortable
Level 2 0.315~0.63 Comfortable 1.3. Highlights and paper organization
Level 3 0.63~1.0 Relative comfortable
Level 4 1.0~1.6 Uncomfortable
Level 5 1.6~2.5 Very uncomfortable Generally, curve and tunnel resistances and rotational inertia are not
Level 6 >2.5 Extreme uncomfortable taken into account in train motion models as seen in Table 1. Most of the
researchers may not have a real train driving test chance to calibrate and
validate the motion model. Similarly, they may not have the opportunity
Therefore, firstly, a train motion simulation model was developed using
to measure the performance of optimized speed profiles in the field using
Matlab. The developed TMSM has been tested with various driving
a real train as well. In this study, a real metro line and a train running on
scenarios on a real rail system line and verified with a certain margin of
this line are modeled with all parameters including speed limits, and the
error. In addition, the comfort parameter, 0.5 m/s3 for this study, was
current speed profile is tried to be optimized by using GA and PSO,
also included in the TMSM in order to obtain a less jerky driving profile.
taking into account the comfort restriction. According to the following
Then, optimal speed profiles with and without the comfort parameter
list, this paper’s main contributions are:

3
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

2.1. Railway track introduction

In the developed TMSM, the real track info of the M3 Metro Line
connected to the Istanbul Metro system was used. As seen in Fig. 2, M3
Line consists of 9 stations extending from Metrokent station to Kirazlı
Station. Total line length is 11.211,00 meters.
Train operation is carried out in both directions (Metrokent-Kirazlı
and Kirazlı Metrokent) on the M3 Metro Line. In this study, the train
Fig. 2. M3 metro line station information. movement in the Metrokent-Kirazlı direction is modeled. Fig. 3 contains
gradient information showing the uphill and downhill of the road for the
• Developing an original train motion simulation model in Matlab line profile. Accordingly, along the Metrokent-Kirazlı direction, there is
program taking into account all route and train parameters and mostly a downhill road section. This gives a great opportunity to
verifying it with a real train driving (accompanied by a driver under implement a coasting phase, subject to current speed restrictions.
manual driving) on the Istanbul M3 Metro Line, The curvature values of the M3 Metro Line were obtained from Metro
• Adding a comfort parameter to provide a less jerky driving profile, Istanbul Co. and shared in Table 3 in order to fully model a real track and
• Optimizing the speed profile using two different heuristic algorithms to calculate the resistances caused by the curves correctly. Curvature
(GA and PSO) and compered them with each other, angle, length and degrees are shared at certain distance intervals. For
• Manually driving a train on the M3 Metro Line with optimal driving
profiles (with and without comfort parameter) and comparing them
Table 3
with the simulation results. M3 metro line curve information.
Distance range (m) Curve radius (m) Curve length (m) Angle (degree)
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces a
real railway track and the rolling stock moving on that line. Section 3, 376 - 1031 405 654 92.52
1103 - 1646 405 543 76.81
describes the TMSM, the simulation approach, and the validation of this
1849 - 2481 460 630 78.47
approach on a real track (M3 Line). Optimization techniques (GA and 2555 - 2890 460 335 41.72
PSO) used in the study are introduced in Section 4. In Section 5, energy 3209 - 3682 720 473 37.64
efficient speed profiles (with and without comfort), practical application 3891 - 4407 460 516 64.27
information and results are shown. In Section 6, the results were inter­ 5202 - 5804 420 600 81.85
5871 - 6902 800 1030 73.76
preted, and in Section 7, the study was concluded by briefly sharing
7624 - 8362 780 738 54.21
information about the outputs and efficiency rates and the works plan­ 8778 - 9471 824 693 48.18
ned for the future. 9640 - 10181 1052 541 29.46
10397 - 10785 374 388 59.44
2. System introduction 10899 - 11211 375 312 47.67

In this study, the real parameters of the M3 metro line, which is a part
of the Istanbul rail system network, and the train running on this line are
taken into account. In this section, the track features of the subway line
(slope, gradient, distance between stations, etc.) and the technical fea­
tures of the train (max. acceleration, speed, traction and braking power,
etc.) are introduced.

Fig. 4. The train sample operating on the M3 metro line.

Fig. 3. M3 metro line gradient information.

4
A. Yildiz et al.
Table 4
Vehicle rated performance values.
Characteristics Values
Maximum adhesion %0.16
Maximum speed (km/h) 88
Voltage (DC) 1500
Total tractive power (kW) 1800
Total tare weigh (tons) 152
non-shared distance intervals, the curvature value is zero.
2.2. Railway car introduction
Vehicles on the Istanbul Metro M3 line are designed on a set of four
wagons. It consists of 2 driver motor cars (Mc1 + Mc2), 1 motor (M) car
and 1 trailer (T) wagon. Fig. 4 shows the train sequence running on this
line.
Each motor wagon has 4 asynchronous traction motors with a
nominal value of 150 kW. Considering their maximum operating per­
formance, it can get at a maximum speed of 88 km/h with acceleration
and deceleration rates of 1.15 m/s2 and 1.04 m/s2, respectively. Table 4
provides a summary of additional significant characteristics for the four
wagon units.
In order for the M3 line train used in the study to be modeled
correctly, it is important that the traction and braking forces are the
original data of this train. Traction and braking curves of M3 line ve­
hicles fed with 1500 VDC voltage are shared in Fig. 5 upon request from
the manufacturer. Then, using these original graphics, simulated
(approximated) braking and traction graphics will be obtained.
3. Train motion model and verification
In train motion simulation model, suitable motion regimes are
determined according to line profile, train and arrival time. A suitable
driving plan consists of four regimes: acceleration, cruising, coasting and
braking. From the beginning of the journey to the beginning of the
cruising phase, the train is accelerated with maximum acceleration
within the limit of adhesion. During the cruising phase, the train con­
tinues its journey at a constant speed. The tractive force applied must be
equivalent to the forces resisting the train’s motion in order to maintain
a constant speed. In the coasting phase, no traction energy is used as the
train travels along a track thanks to the momentum already reached. In
the final stage, a constant force is applied to the train against the di­
rection of movement. The magnitude of the braking force depends on
the characteristics of the train.
Fig. 5. Supplied from the vehicle manufacturer: (a) Traction effort; (b) Braking effort against train speed.
5
Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196
3.1. Mathematical formulation of motion
The basic law of dynamics can be used to analyze a train’s driving
model as it travels between two points. The train’s Equations of motion
can be expressed in the following way using Newton’s second law [43]:
dx
=v (1)
dt
dv Ftr − Fbr − FR ± FG − FC − FT
= (2)
dt M(1 + β)
In these equations, x and v are the position and speed of the train,
respectively. Ftr (kN) tractive effort, Fbr (kN) braking effort, FR (kN)
basic motion resistance, FG (kN) resistance resulting from a level change
(gradient resistance), FC (kN) on curved rails is the curvature resistance
owing to energy loss at the wheel-rail interface due to slip, creep and
friction, FT (kN) is the tunnel resistance, M(t) is the tare mass of the
train, and β is the mass adjustment factor (due to rotating mass).
Next, the distance between stations i and i + 1 is expressed as Xi (m),
the allowable travel time Ti (sec), and the maximum allowable speed V
(m/sec). Therefore, between stations i and i + 1, these parameters are
limited by the following restrictions [44]:
0 ≤ x ≤ Xi 0 ≤ t ≤ Ti 0 ≤ v ≤ V (3)
The basic running resistance of the train, FR , can be calculated using
the Davis Equation [45]:
FR = A + Bv + Cv2 (4)
Where, the coefficients A, B, and C, respectively, represent mass, me­
chanical resistance, and air resistance. These coefficients can be
requested from the manufacturer or are generally obtained by field tests.
In this study, it was obtained through field tests.
The gradient resistance due to the ups and downs is obtained from
Eq. (5)[45]:
FG = M(1 + β)gsinα (5)
2
Where, M is the train’s empty mass and g (m/s ) is the gravitational
acceleration. If the mass increase caused by the vehicle’s rotational
inertia is unknown, the mass can be multiplied by the coefficient (1 + β)
to provide an idea of the approximate empty mass of the moving vehicle.
The β value typically ranges from 0.06 to 0.11, depending on the train
type and traction system. Here, the vehicle’s maker provided the extra
rotational mass increase, which was then combined with the vehicle’s
empty mass. The curve resistance is obtained from Eq. (6)[1]:
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Fig. 6. (a) Approximated traction force and; (b) Approximated braking force.

( 0) ( 0)
a a ⎧
FC = 10, 5. xcr ≥ lt FC = 10, 5. xcr ≤ lt (6) ⎪
⎪ 6.0024.v − 0, 01 v ≤ 3.33
xcr lt ⎨
6.544.v − 1, 813 3.33 < v ≤ 6.389
Fbr = (9)
⎪ 5.9132.v − 2, 2204 6.389 < v ≤ 8.889
Where, a0 represents the curve’s angle length in (degrees) xcr , curve’s ⎪
⎩
54.783 8.889 < v
linear length in (meters) and lt , train’s length in (meters). Eq. (7), can be
used to determine the increased resistance force experienced by the train Traction and braking curves were obtained in Matlab by using Ftr and
as it enters the tunnel [1]: Fbr Equations and are shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 indicates the outputs obtained for the traction, braking and
FT = 0, 00013.ltu (7)
basic running resistance curves of the modeled train. There is a constant
force (Fm ) in traction up to the speed V1 , but after this speed there is a
Where, ltu (m) is the tunnel length. The tunnel resistance can be
decrease in the traction force as the train enters a constant power zone.
computed using the formula FT = 0.00013. lt if the train’s length, lt , is
As for the braking characteristic, it is in a constant power region (Bm )
greater than the tunnel’s length.
until the train speed drops to V2 and after this speed decreases linearly.
Regarding train traction force Ftr and braking force Fbr , they are
Eq. (10), can be used to calculate the mechanical power, Pmec (kW),
dependent on train speed. Therefore, a model that can fit these curves
taking into account the traction force and the train’s speed:
will be needed. Therefore, the following Eqs. (8) and (9), for traction and
braking regimes are created and approximated to the original data given Pmec (t) = Ftr (t).v(t) (10)
in Fig. 6.
⎧ Considering the values of Eq. (10), the amount of energy required to
⎨ 59.31 v < 46.11 make a trip, Ec (kWh), is expressed by Eq. (11).
Ftr = 0.02048.v2 − 3.319.v + 168.29 46.11 ≤ v < 60 (8)
⎩ ∫T
0.00893.v2 − 1.7867.v + 118.17 60 ≤ v ≤ 88
Ec = Pmec (t)dt (11)
0

Fig. 7. Train Motion Simulation Model Structure.

6
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Fig. 8. Phase Sequence for an Optimal Train Operation.

This nomenclature for comfort in rail systems can take into account a Driving methods can be optimized for energy savings in accordance with
wide range of factors, including waiting times at stations, interior the traction energy results.
lighting, air conditioning, and others. The ride’s safe and acceptable jerk The energy consumption of a train is largely dependent on the
is the comfort criterion taken into account in this study. By preventing movement of the train. An optimal train running for a straight line
rapid acceleration and braking, it is also aimed to improve passenger should include the following motion stages, respectively: maximum
comfort and safety. Additionally, by lowering friction between the acceleration (MA), cruising (CR), coasting (CO) and braking (BR) [45].
wheels and the rails, it is aimed to save maintenance costs. On a speed vs. position graph, Fig. 8, shows the phase sequence of an
In this study, the acceleration change rate (Jerk-m/s3) is taken as 0.5 ideal train operation.
m/s3. It has been tried to provide less jerky driving by allowing a State variables can be converted into discrete time in the time in­
maximum of 0.5 m/s3 in 1 second for the speed change of the train. The terval [0, T] for N steps in the differential Eqs. (1) and (2), which
Jerk parameter is involved in the model by Eq. (12) [46]. characterize the system dynamics in continuous time,
∫ ⃒da⃒
⃒ ⃒dt Vk+1 = Vk + ak .Δt
J = dt (12) ( )
T Vk + Vk+1
Xk+1 = Xk + .Δt (13)
2
Where, J is the change in acceleration rate, and T is the travelling time.
∀k ∈ {0, …, N}

3.2. Modelling the train motion simulation where Vk , Xk , ak indicate speed, position and acceleration of train at step
k respectively. Δt indicates step size:
Train motion simulation consists of two basic inputs, fixed and dy­
namic inputs. Fixed inputs include train and track properties. Driving Δt =
T
(14)
strategies are processed as dynamic inputs to the train motion simula­ N
tion, typically involving acceleration, cruising, coasting, and braking. For k ∈ {0, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅,N}, the quantities Fk and Vk indicate the instantaneous
The TMSM, the basic structure of which is given in Fig. 7, gives the train power at the k − th step, and the sum of the consumptions at each step
speed trajectory based on driving techniques and constant inputs.

Fig. 9. Real train motion & TMSM Speed-Position comparison between Metrokent-Kirazlı stations.

7
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Fig. 10. Real train motion & TMSM Speed-Time comparison between Metrokent-Kirazlı stations.

In summary, Figs. 9, 10 and Table 5 show that a real train motion can
Table 5
be simulated with great accuracy.
Multi-station TMSM accuracy comparison.
Comparison Real train Modeled train Error 4. Introduction of optimization techniques (GA and PSO)
motion motion (%)

total travel time between 886.00 875.00 1.24 In this study, GA and PSO optimization techniques, which are
stations (Sec)
frequently preferred in solving train trajectory problems, are preferred
total energy consumption 88.51 90.02 -1.70
(kWh)
to find the best speed profile for each inter-station.
total regenerative energy 18.00 18.80 -4.40
(kWh) 4.1. Genetic algorithm

The genetic algorithm is a well-known approach for dealing with

equals the total energy consumed throughout the trip.
3.3. Validation of the train motion simulation model
In this study, the M3 Metro line linked to Istanbul Metro system and
the train running on this line are modeled. Therefore, the model vali­
dation study was carried out with a train running on this line. The train
was driven manually, accompanied by a driver, as if it were in current
operation.
In trains running on the M3 Metro line, there is a device (MPU-main
processing unit) in the vehicle cabin. All driving information (MA point,
CR point, CO point, BR point, distance, energy consumption, etc.) are
recorded in this device. At the end of driving, all recorded information
can be obtained in the desired format (such as excel) by connecting to
this device with a computer.
By examining the driving information obtained, between each sta­
tion, the vehicle’s switching points (MA-CR-CO-BR) were noted one by
one. Then, the same data was entered into the created TMSM. Thus, a
real train motion is simulated in the MATLAB program. Figs. 9 and 10
show superimposed velocity-position and velocity-time graphs of real
train motion and simulated motions, respectively.
The proposed model was applied to different stations by adjusting
the parameters by manual driving under the real operating constraints of
the Istanbul Metro network to adjust and validate the simulation. The
results obtained were compared with the measured data. As can be seen
from Table 5, the simulated running times differ from the measured
times by an average of 1.24%, energy consumption by 1.70% and
regenerative braking energy by 4.4%.
challenges involving global optimization. The search for novel problem-
solving techniques that offer simple, fast solutions has become necessary
due to the complicated and challenging environment of today. Partic­
ularly, instead of hard optimization techniques, the use of soft
computing and evolutionary algorithms has come to the fore. Addi­
tionally beginning to play a significant role in these searches are genetic
algorithms, one of the evolutionary techniques.
Natural selection principles are the foundation of the search and
optimization technique known as genetic algorithms. John Holland [47]
developed its fundamental ideas. Function optimization, scheduling,
mechanical learning, and design are a few fields where genetic algo­
rithms have found success. In contrast to conventional optimization
techniques, genetic algorithms use their coded form rather than the
parameter set. Only objective function is required for genetic algorithms
that follow probability laws. Instead of the entire solution space, they
only scan a certain region. As a result, by actively searching, they can
find a solution in a short amount of time. Another key benefit is that they
do not limit themselves to the best local solutions by simultaneously
analyzing the population of solutions. Generally, the steps of the genetic
algorithm can be listed as follows [48]:
1. Randomly generate initial population;
2. Calculate the objective function values of all chromosomes in the
population;
3. Apply the reproduction, crossover and mutation operators;
4. Find the objective function values of each new chromosome created;

8
A. Yildiz et al.
Fig. 11. Straightforward strategy and optimal (with and without comfort) strategies velocity-time graph between Turgut Ozal-Siteler stations (a) with GA method (b)
with PSO method.
5. Remove the chromosomes with poor objective function values from
the population;
6. Repeat steps between 3–5.
4.2. Particle swarm optimization
In 1995, R.C. Eberhart and J. Kennedy developed the population-
based optimization technique known as Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO), which was motivated by the behavior of bird swarms [49]. The
communication of many animal herds such as birds and fish in diverse
environmental adaptation processes like finding abundant food sources
and escaping from predators increases the speed and probability of
discovering the truth.
Based on this approach, there is a swarm and particles that are each
individual of the swarm. Utilizing its prior knowledge, each particle
adjusts its position to take the best possible place within the swarm. The
particle in the swarm with the best position at any given time directs the
other particles’ movements. The particles are generally in a better po­
sition on their new motion than they were before, and this approach
velocity is a random phenomena. Until the aim is achieved, this process
is continued.
PSO updates the particle’s position as follows [50]:
( ) ( )
Vid = wVid + c1 r1 pdi − xdi + c2 r2 pdg − xdg (15)
xdi = xdi + μVdi (16)
Where, pi represents the particle’s best position, vi is the velocity of the
particle, and all the best positions for all the neighbor particles are pg . i
= 1, 2,..., m; d =1, 2,..., D; xdi denotes the velocity in dth dimension for ith
iteration. w denotes the inertia factor which is non-negative. c1 and c2
are acceleration constants which can ensure converge rate. pdi denotes
the best position for the ith iteration. pdg denotes the global best position.
r1 and r2 are the random number between 0 and 1. μ denotes constraint
which can change the weight which is closed related to the convergence.
Generally, the steps of the PSO algorithm can be listed as follows:
1. Starting swarm is created with randomly generated starting position,
speed and direction.
2. The fitness values of all particles are calculated.
3. Find the best approximation for each particle.
4. The global best is selected among them.
5. Speed and position are recalculated.
9
Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196
6. If the result is close enough, it is stopped, otherwise the processes are
repeated from the 2nd step.
5. Optimization study
In this study, to be able to reduce energy consumption, the method of
controlling the motion transition phases along the route of a train during
its operation is preferred. The model performs these instructions taking
into consideration the speed and running time constraints, and decides
in which motion phase it will act. Unlike several studies in the literature,
instead of reducing energy use at different trip times or predetermined
trip times, the energy consumption according to the actual travel time
was tried to be optimized with the GA and PSO search methods. In
addition, a Jerk limit value was determined (in this study it was taken as
0.5m/s3) considering less jerky driving situation, and speed profile
optimization was made in TMSM in case of comfortable driving. Then,
straightforward strategy, optimal strategy and optimal strategy with
comfort are compared and the results are discussed. Finally, a train was
driven manually, with the new speed profiles optimized in TMSM. Train
driving results obtained from the field study were compared and the
results were also shared.
5.1. Speed profile optimization
Energy-efficient driving methods have been researched and phase
transitions (MA-CR-CO-BR) optimization method has been chosen to
decrease energy consumption. While optimizing energy consumption,
no flexibility was given to the algorithms in travel time, and based on the
real trip time of the M3 Metro Line, it was intended to reduce energy use.
This is demonstrated by 3 different case studies.
In the optimal driving mode that takes into account comfort, as seen
in Fig. 11 (black line in GA and green line in PSO), it has a smoother start
of motion and accelerates with a maximum Jerk limit of 0.5 m/s3.
However, in order for the train to reach the station in the predetermined
time, it extends the MA phase more than the optimal driving mode,
which does not pay attention to comfort, and therefore it is understood
that the energy consumption will be higher.
For an optimal strategy, the total energy consumption can be divided
into motion stages. The end point of MA phase, where the most energy is
consumed, is indicated by k1 . In CR phase, the velocity (VCR ) is constant
and the traction force equals the values of resistance against to train
motion. This stage extends between points k1 and k2 . In the later stages
(i.e. coasting and braking stages), there is no traction force, hence no
energy is lost. Thus, Eq. (17) is used to compute the overall energy usage
for an optimal strategy between consecutive stations:
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Fig. 12. The structure of optimal transition points (MA, CR, CO, BR) identification module.

ETOTAL = EMA + ECR (17)

∫k1 ∫k2
Where, EMA and ECR indicate the energies consumed during the obj = min Ftr (t).v(t) + Ftr (t).vcr (t) (18)
k1 ,k2
maximum acceleration and cruising phases. Considering punctuality 0 k1

and comfort, it is desired to ensure energy-effective journey. The correct

assignment of transition points between phases is of primary importance Subject to:
for the issue under consideration, as it establishes the energy con­ dv(t) Ftr (t) − Fbr (t) − FR (t) ± FG (t) − FC (t) − FT (t)
sumption. Discovering the optimal transition points for a journey be­ dt
=
M(1 + β)
, 0 ≤ t ≤ Ti
tween stations i and i + 1 can be formulated as an optimization problem (19)
as it is indicated in the following formulas 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28 and 29: dx(t)
= v(t), 0 ≤ t ≤ Ti (20)
dt

Fig. 13. Straightforward strategy, optimal strategy (with GA and PSO) and optimal strategy with comfort (GA and PSO) between M3 Metro Line stations velocity-
position graph (in simulation environment).

10
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Fig. 14. Straightforward strategy, optimal strategy (with GA and PSO) and optimal strategy with comfort (GA and PSO) between M3 Metro Line stations velocity-
time graph (in simulation environment).

Ftr (t) = Ftrmax , 0 ≤ t ≤ k1 (21) BR) are generated. These dynamic variables are then sent to the train
motion simulation and the energy consumption and travel time are
Ftr (t) = FR (t) ± FG (t) + FC (t) + FT (t), k1 ≤ t ≤ k2 (22) generated. Then, the GA and PSO re-determines these points according
to their own operating process and the TMSM is restarted to obtain new
Ftr (t) = 0, k2 ≤ t ≤ Ti (23) energy consumption and travel time. In line with all the restrictions
given above, motion transition points for each inter-station that provide
Fbr (t) = 0, 0 ≤ t ≤ k3 (24) the least energy consumption are obtained.

Fbr (t) = Fbrmax , k3 ≤ t ≤ Ti (25) 5.2. TMSM optimization results

0 ≤ Ftr ≤ Ftrmax (26)
In real practice, if there is no ATO (automatic train operation)
operation, the train’s speed trajectory is determined by the driver’s in­
0 ≤ Fbr ≤ Fbrmax (27)
stincts. Generally, these trajectories count on redundant braking actions
t(0) = 0; x(0) = 0; v(0) = 0 (28) and are therefore not optimal with regard to minimum energy con­
sumption. In this context, the speed profile optimization of a train
x(Ti ) = Xi ; v(Ti ) = 0 (29) moving on the M3 Metro Line, which was introduced in the above sec­
tions, was made with the GA and PSO methods separately. Straightfor­
The structure showing finding the optimal transition points is given ward strategy, optimal strategy (with GA and PSO) and optimal strategy
in Fig. 12. Accordingly, random motion starting points (MA, CR, CO and with comfort (GA and PSO) driving profiles are shown as velocity-

Table 6
Comparison of Simulation Results.
Stations Straightforward strategy Optimal strategy with GA Optimal strategy with Optimal strategy with PSO Optimal strategy with
comfort (GA) comfort (PSO)
Travel Energy Travel Energy Travel Energy Travel Energy Travel Energy
time consumption time consumption time consumption time consumption time consumption
(sec) (kWh) (sec) (kWh) (sec) (kWh) (sec) (kWh) (sec) (kWh)

Metrokent- 119.50 14.6179 119.50 12.0212 119.50 12.6328 119.50 11.5780 119.50 12.1060
Başakkonutlari
Başakkonutlari- 100.00 8.5903 100.00 3.4264 100.00 4.6181 100.00 3.4180 100.00 4.6200
Siteler
Siteler-Turgut 73.00 6.8022 73.00 4.1141 73.00 4.5606 73.00 4.1141 73.00 4.5606
Ozal
Turgut Ozal- 110.50 8.9039 110.50 2.5455 110.50 3.3491 110.50 2.5455 110.50 3.3491
Ikitelli Sanayi
Ikitelli Sanayi- 125.00 16.8861 125.00 12.8814 125.00 14.3894 125.00 12.0939 125.00 13.8857
Istoç
Istoç-Mahmutbey 91.50 20.2384 91.50 19.5139 91.50 20.4475 91.50 19.4616 91.50 20.2122
Mahmutbey- 117.50 9.2306 117.50 5.1380 117.50 5.5545 117.50 5.3038 117.50 5.5545
Yenimahalle
Yenimahalle- 138.00 4.7506 138.00 2.0091 138.00 2.4239 138.00 2.0091 138.00 2.4250
Kirazli

11
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Table 7 can be seen in Figs. 13 and 14, in this manuscript, waiting times at
Jerk values of simulation results. stations are ignored, as there is no traction energy consumption during
Comparison Straightforward Optimal Optimal strategy standstill. A detailed comparison is made in Table 6 for trains moving in
strategy strategies (with with comfort (with the relevant speed profiles. We can see the jerk values of simulation
GA and PSO) GA and PSO) results from Table 7.
Maximum Jerk 1.12 1.12 0.5 When Table 6 is examined carefully, efficiency could not be achieved
(m/s3) only between Istoç-Mahmutbey stations in optimized driving that takes
comfort into account (with GA). This is because there is a deep steep
downhill between these two stations, as can be seen in Fig. 3, which
position and velocity-time graphs in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively.
shows the gradient of the route. While the algorithm recommends a slow
As seen in the velocity-time graph, unlike the general literature, time
start not exceeding the defined Jerk limit, it preferred to compensate for
flexibility is not allowed in the optimization algorithm. Optimal motion
the lost time by keeping the CR phase longer and consumed relatively
transition points were found in the predefined motion time interval. As
more energy.

Fig. 15. Straightforward strategy, optimal strategy (with GA and PSO) and optimal strategy with comfort (GA and PSO) between M3 Metro Line stations velocity-
position graph (in real driving).

Fig. 16. Straightforward strategy, optimal strategy (with GA and PSO) and optimal strategy with comfort (GA and PSO) between M3 Metro Line stations velocity-
time graph (in real driving).

12
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

5.3. Field-study results

Energy consumption
Optimal strategy with comfort (PSO)
After the optimization study was carried out in the simulation
environment, a train was driven manually on the M3 metro line in the
same motion situations (straightforward strategy, optimal strategies and

14.7200
20.9500
optimal strategies with comfort). Before driving, the driver was taught

12.500

4.7800
4.7000
3.3520

5.5825

2.3550
(kWh)
how to drive the train between each station with respect to the recom­
mended optimal strategies. While driving, the driver was given com­
mands to drive the train in both optimal strategies, respectively.
Travel time

In order to be able to drive the vehicle in the motion sequences

121.00

102.00

112.25

127.00

119.50

151.00
suggested by the both algorithms and not to miss the transition points
72.50

95.50
(sec)

(MA-CR-CO-BR), the position (position information is written on the

vehicle display) was followed meticulously from the starting point of the
Energy consumption

motion and the driver was warned when the transition point came from
one phase to the next, and the vehicle was driven in the relevant motion
phase.
Optimal strategy with PSO

At the end of the driving, driving information was obtained from the
12.0000

13.2001
19.0000
3.5292
4.2544
2.5200

5.2000

2.0000
(kWh)

recording device inside the vehicle, and accordingly, straightforward

strategy, optimal strategy (both GA and PSO) and optimal strategy with
comfort (both GA and PSO) driving graphics were obtained as speed-
position in Fig. 15 and speed-time in Fig. 16.
Travel time

As seen in the velocity-time and velocity-position graphs, the simu­

120.25

102.25

109.00

127.00

119.00

148.00
72.25

95.25
(sec)

lation and field results are consistent with each other, with very minor
deviations, in all three different cases. A detailed comparison is made in
Table 8 for trains moving in the relevant speed profiles.
Energy consumption
Optimal strategy with comfort (GA)

In optimized driving that takes comfort into account, efficiency could

not be achieved only between Istoç-Mahmutbey stations in real train
driving as well, as in the simulation model. Jerk limit values are the
same as in simulation study in real field studies as well.
12.7500

14.8411
21.0085
4.8100
4.7800
3.3912

5.6215

2.3825
(kWh)

6. Discussion
Travel time

In this study, a train motion simulation model was developed by

119.50

101.75

111.75

126.00

119.75

151.75

using the real data of the Istanbul M3 Metro Line and the cars. Then, the
72.75

95.50
(sec)

TMSM was calibrated and verified by train motion tests on this line,
accompanied by a driver. Next, the straightforward strategy is optimized
with the GA and PSO optimization methods. Considering the less jerky
Energy consumption

driving situation, the optimal strategy with comfort was obtained by the
same method and the simulation results were compared. Finally, the
speed profiles obtained in the simulation model were applied to the field
Optimal strategy with GA

12.1112

13.2501
19.1126
3.5900
4.2621
2.5225

5.1100

2.0000

with a train driver and their outputs were shared. In this section, the
(kWh)

results obtained are interpreted.

Table 9 shows the summary of the simulation results performed in
TMSM. Accordingly, the train, which moves with the straightforward
Travel time

strategy, completed its motion between 9 stations (8 inter-stations) with

119.00

101.75

110.50

125.50

119.25

149.75
72.50

94.50

an energy consumption of 90.02 kWh in 875 seconds, while moving with

(sec)

the optimal strategy, it ended its motion with an energy consumption of

61.65 kWh in GA and 60.52 in PSO in the same travel time. After adding
the Jerk (0.5 m/s3) constraint to the simulation model, the optimization
Energy consumption

was made again, and in this case, the train reached the last station with
the same travel time with an energy consumption of 67.98 kWh in GA
and 66.71 in PSO.
14.3159

16.8861
19.6344
Straightforward strategy

8.5903
6.5002
8.9039

8.9286

4.7506
(kWh)

According to the simulation results, 31.51% (in GA) and 32.77% (in
PSO) energy savings have been achieved in driving with the optimal
strategies compared to the straightforward strategy. In driving with the
Travel time

optimal strategies with comfort, energy savings of 24.48% (in GA) and
Comparison of Field-Study Results.

25.89% (in PSO) were achieved compared to the straightforward strat­

117.50

100.00

110.00

124.50

119.00

147.50
74.25

93.25
(sec)

egy. That is, when optimization is made after the comfort parameter is
included, 6.88% and 7.03% less energy savings are achieved compared
to optimal strategy with PSO and optimal strategy with GA. This is
Başakkonutlar-Siteler

Yenimahalle-Kirazlı
İkitelli Sanayi-Istoç
Turgut Özal-İkitelli

because the model offers low acceleration starting to guarantee less

Siteler-Turgut Özal
Başakkonutları

Istoç-Mahmutbey

jerky driving. However, in order to regain the time lost here, it consumes
Yenimahalle
Mahmutbey-

relatively more energy by keeping the MA or CR phase longer.

Metrokent-

Sanayi

Table 10 shows the summary of the driving results performed in the

Stations
Table 8

field. Accordingly, when the train is driven between 9 stations as under

normal operation, it arrives at the last station with an energy

13
A. Yildiz et al. Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196

Table 9
Evaluation of simulation results.
Comparisons Straightforward Optimal Efficiency Optimal Efficiency Optimal Efficiency Optimal Efficiency
strategy strategy with (%) strategy with (%) strategy with (%) strategy with (%)
GA comfort (GA) PSO comfort (PSO)

Total travel time 875 875 875 875 875

(sec)
Total energy 90.02 61.65 31.51 67.98 24.48 60.52 32.77 66.71 25.89
consumption
(kWh)
Max.Jerk (m/s3) 1.12 1.12 0 0.5 55.35 1.12 0 0.5 55.35

Table 10
Evaluation of real train driving results.
Comparisons Straightforward Optimal Efficiency Optimal Efficiency Optimal Efficiency Optimal Efficiency
strategy strategy with (%) strategy with (%) strategy with (%) strategy with (%)
GA comfort (GA) PSO comfort (PSO)

Total travel time 886 892.75 898.75 893.00 900.75

(sec)
Total energy 88.51 61.95 30 69.58 21.38 61.70 30.29 68.94 22.11
consumption
(kWh)
Max.Jerk (m/s3) 1.12 1.12 0 0.5 55.35 1,12 0 0.5 55.35

consumption of 88.51 kWh within 886 seconds. When the train is driven
by trying to comply with the optimal strategy, the motion ended with
892.75 seconds and 893.00 seconds with an energy consumption of
61.95 kWh and 61.70 kWh, in GA and PSO respectively. In the optimal
strategy with comfort driving situation, the motion ended with an en­
ergy consumption of 69.58 kWh and 68.94 kWh in 898.75 and 900.75
seconds in GA and PSO, respectively.
According to the field results, 30% (in GA) and 30.29% (in PSO)
energy savings were achieved in driving with the optimal strategies
compared to driving with the straightforward strategy. With the opti­
mized speed profile within the comfort restriction, 21.38% and 22.11%
energy savings were achieved compared to the straightforward strategy.
When the optimal strategy and optimal strategy with comfort driving
situations are compared, it is seen that 7.89% and 8.62% less energy
savings are achieved in the optimal strategies with comfort condition.
This is due to the same reason explained in the simulation results.
less jerky driving style option is offered. In this case, passenger comfort
has been increased by 55.35% compared to the current situation. It
should not be forgotten that even small efficiency ratios are significant
in rail transportation systems where large powers are consumed.
In the future work, it is planned to develop a multi-train motion
simulation model and to carry out a timetable optimization study that
will ensure maximum benefit from the regenerative energy produced
during the braking of the trains.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ahmet Yildiz: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Valida­
tion, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review &
editing. Oktay Arikan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Writing – review & editing. Kemal Keskin: Conceptualization, Meth­
odology, Software, Writing – review & editing.

7. Conclusions and future works

In this study, the motion of a railway vehicle is modeled in Matlab,
taking into account vehicle information (traction and braking forces,
motion resistance, mechanical power etc.), road data (curve, gradient
and tunnel) and operational restrictions (such as speed limits) of Istan­
bul Metro M3 Line. A driving test was conducted on this line to validate
the simulation. Train speed profiles were then optimized for each inter-
station by both algorithms, GA and PSO. Afterwards, a jerk limit was
assigned considering the safe and comfortable travel of the passengers.
Within this limitation, the speed profile optimization was carried out
again. The results obtained from both TMSM and field tests were
compared.
The TMSM was able to simulate a real train motion with an error of
1.24% in terms of travel time, 1.70% in total energy consumption and
4.4% in terms of regenerative braking energy. Using two different
heuristic algorithms, speed profile optimization was carried out with
and without comfort constraint. According to the straightforward
strategy, it has been shown that in the simulation environment, it can
provide energy savings of 24.48% and 31.51% in GA method and
25.89% and 32.77% in PSO method, in optimal strategy with and
without comfort respectively. In real train driving, these rates were
obtained as 21.38% and 30% in GA and 22.11% and 30.29% in PSO,
respectively. Furthermore, by taking the comfort parameter as 0.5 m/s3,
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
References
[1] S. Su, T. Tang, Y. Wang, Evaluation of strategies to reducing traction energy
consumption of metro systems using an optimal train control simulation model,
Energies 9 (2016) 105, https://doi.org/10.3390/en9020105.
[2] P. Howlett, An optimal strategy for the control of a train, Automatica 32 (1996)
519–532, https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(95)00184-0.
[3] W. Liu, T. Tang, S. Su, J. Yin, Y. Cao, C. Wang, Energy-efficient train driving
strategy with considering the steep downhill segment, Processes 7 (2019) 77,
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7020077.
[4] A. Rocha, A. Araújo, A. Carvalho, J.A. Sepulveda, New approach for real time train
energy efficiency optimization, Energies 11 (2018) 2660, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en11102660.
[5] Z. Wu, C. Gao, T. Tang, An Optimal Train Speed Profile Planning Method for
Induction Motor Traction System, Energies 14 (2021) 5153, https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14165153.

14
A. Yildiz et al.
[6] M. Gallo, M. Botte, A. Ruggiero, L. D’Acierno, A Simulation Approach for
Optimising Energy-Efficient Driving Speed Profiles in Metro Lines, Energies 13
(2020) 6038, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13226038.
[7] C. Lin, X. Fang, X. Zhao, Q. Zhang, X. Liu, Study on energy-saving optimization of
train coasting control based on multi-population Genetic Algorithm, in: 3rd
International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR), Nagoya,
Japan, 24-26 Apr, 2017.
[8] Y. Huang, X. Ma, S. Su, T. Tang, Optimization of Train Operation in Multiple
Interstations with Multi-Population Genetic Algorithm, Energies 8 (2015)
14311–14329, https://doi.org/10.3390/en81212433.
[9] X. Wang, Z. Xiao, M. Chen, P. Sun, Q. Wang, X. Feng, Energy-Efficient Speed Profile
Optimization and Sliding Mode Speed Tracking for Metros, Energies 13 (2020)
6093, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13226093.
[10] K. Keskin, A. Karamancioglu, Energy-efficient train operation using nature-inspired
algorithms, J. Adv. Transp. 2017 (2017) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/
6173795.
[11] M. Blanco-Castillo, A. Fernández-Rodríguez, A. Fernández-Cardador, A.P. Cucala,
Eco-Driving in Railway Lines Considering the Uncertainty Associated with
Climatological Conditions, Sustainability 14 (2022) 8645, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14148645.
[12] Y.V. Bocharnikov, A.M. Tobias, C. Roberts, S. Hillmansen, C.J. Goodman, Optimal
driving strategy for traction energy saving on DC suburban railways, IET Electr. 1
(2007) 5, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-epa:20070005.
[13] J. He, Y.H. Li, S.H. Long, Y.T. Xu, J.Q. Chen, Energy-efficient tram speed trajectory
optimization considering the influence of the traffic lights, Front. Energy Res. 10
(2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.
[14] I.V. Sanchis, P.S. Zuriaga, An energy-efficient metro speed profiles for energy
savings: application to the Valencia metro, Transp. Res. Proc. 18 (2016) 226–233,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.12.031.
[15] Z. Tian, N. Zhao, S. Hillmansen, C. Roberts, T. Dowens, C. Kerr, SmartDrive:
Traction Energy Optimization and Applications in Rail Systems, IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 20 (2019) 7, https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2019.2897279.
[16] L. Fan, F. Cao, B. Ke, T. Tang, in: Speed profile optimization for train operation
based on ant colony algorithm. IEEE Advanced Information Technology, Electronic
and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), Chongqing, China, 19-20 December,
2015.
[17] S. Su, X. Wang, Y. Cao, J. Yin, An energy-efficient train operation approach by
integrating the metro timetabling and eco-driving, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.
21 (2020) 10, https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2019.2939358.
[18] P. Liu, L. Yang, Z. Gao, Y. Huang, S. Li, Y. Gao, Energy-efficient train timetable
optimization in the subway system with energy storage devices, IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 19 (2018) 12, https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2018.2789910.
[19] X.C. Ran, S.K. Chen, G.H. Liu, Y. Bai, Energy-efficient approach combining train
speed profile and timetable optimisations for metro operations, IET Intell. Transp.
Syst. 14 (2021) 1967–1977, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2020.0346.
[20] N. Zhao, C. Roberts, S. Hillmansen, Z. Tian, P. Weston, L Chen, An integrated metro
operation optimization to minimize energy consumption, Transp. Res. Part C:
Emerging Technologies 75 (2017) 168–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
trc.2019.12.013.
[21] F. Shang, J. Zhan, Y. Chen, Energy-Saving Train Regulation for Metro Lines Using
Distributed Model Predictive Control, Energies 13 (2020) 5483, https://doi.org/
10.3390/en13205483.
[22] L. Allen, S. Chien, Application of regenerative braking with optimized speed
profiles for sustainable train operation, J. Adv. Transp. 2021 (2021) 12, https://
doi.org/10.1155/2021/8555372.
[23] S. Rastegarzadeh, M. Mahzoon, H. Mohammadi, A novel modular designing for
multi-ring flywheel rotor to optimize energy consumption in light metro trains,
Energy 206 (2020) 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.energy.2020.119092.
[24] Z. Xiao, H. Chen, J. Guo, Q. Wang, P. Sun, X. Feng, Joint optimization of speed and
voltage trajectories for hybrid electric trams, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 57 (2021)
6427–6439, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2021.3102881.
[25] R. Zhang, S. Yin, M. Ye, Z. Yang, S.A Timetable He, Optimization Model for Urban
Rail Transit with Express/Local Mode, J. Adv. Transp. 2021 (2021) 1–15, https://
doi.org/10.1155/2021/5589185.
[26] Ozhigin, A.; Prunev, P.; Sverdlin, V.; Vikulina, Y. Development of an algorithm for
energy efficient automated train driving. 8th European Congress on Embedded Real
Time Software and Systems (ERTS 2016), Jan 2016, TOULOUSE, France. ffhal-
01289425.
[27] K. Huang, J. Wu, X. Yang, Z. Gao, F. Liu, Y. Zhu, Discrete Train Speed Profile
Optimization for Urban Rail Transit: A Data-Driven Model and Integrated
Algorithms Based on Machine Learning, Journal of Advanced Transportation 2019
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7258986 vol.Article ID 7258986, 17 pages.
[28] Chen, E.; Bu B.; and Sun, W. An Energy-Efficient Operation Approach Based on the
Utilization of Regenerative Braking Energy Among Trains. 2015 IEEE 18th
15
Electric Power Systems Research 218 (2023) 109196
International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2015, pp. 2606-2611,
10.1109/ITSC.2015.419.
[29] A. Fernández-Rodríguez, A.P. Cucala, A. Fernández-Cardador, An Eco-Driving
Algorithm for Interoperable Automatic Train Operation, Appl. Sci. 10 (2020) 7705,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217705.
[30] A. Fernández-Rodríguez, A. Fernández-Cardador, A.P. Cucala, M. Domínguez,
T. Gonsalves, Design of robust and energy-efficient ATO speed profiles of
metropolitan lines considering train load variations and delays, IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 16 (2015) 2061–2071.
[31] Zhao, N.; Tian, Z.; Chen, L.; Roberts, C.; and Hillmansen, S. Driving Strategy
Optimization and Field Test on an Urban Rail Transit System, in IEEE Intelligent
Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 34-44, Fall 2021, 10.110
9/MITS.2019.2926369.
[32] Bocharnikov, Y.V.; Tobias, A. M.; and Roberts, C. Reduction of train and net energy
consumption using genetic algorithms for Trajectory Optimisation, IET Conference
on Railway Traction Systems (RTS2010), 2010, pp. 1-5, 10.1049/ic.2010.0038.
[33] Y. Huang, L. Yang, T. Tang, Z. Gao, F. Cao, K. Li, Train speed profile optimization
with on-board energy storage devices: A dynamic programming based approach,
CAIE 126 (2018) 149–164, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.cie.2018.09.024.
[34] Z. Xiao, X. Feng, Q. Wang, P. Sun, Eco-driving control for hybrid electric trams on a
signalised route, IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 14 (2019) 36–44, https://doi.org/
10.1049/iet.-its.2019.0345.
[35] Wang, Yuyang & Chardonnet, Jean-Remy & Merienne, Frédéric. (2018). Speed
Profile Optimization for Enhanced Passenger Comfort: An Optimal Control
Approach. 723-728. 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569420.
[36] D. He, Y. Yang, Y. Chen, J. Deng, S. Shan, J. Liu, X. Li, An integrated optimization
model of metro energy consumption based on regenerative energy and passenger
transfer, Applied energy (2020) 264, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
apenergy.2020.114770.
[37] Y. Arikan, T. Sen, E. Cam, Energy efficiency in rail systems with coasting control
method using GA and ABC optimizations, Technical Gazette 28 (2021) 4, https://
doi.org/10.17559/TV-20200511115919.
[38] Ahmadi, S.; Dastfan, A. Energy saving in urban railway using speed profile
optimization. 24th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE), Shiraz, Iran,
10-12 May 2016.
[39] S. Su, T. Tang, C. Roberts, A cooperative train control model for energy saving,
IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 16 (2015) 622–631, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TITS.2014.
[40] Q. Pu, X. Zhu, J. Liu, D. Cai, G. Fu, D. Wei, J. Sun, E. Zhang, Integrated optimal
design of speed profile and Fuzzy PID controller for train with multifactor
consideration, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 152146–152160, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2020.3017193.
[41] V.D. Martinis, M. Gallo, Models and methods to optimise train speed profiles with
and without energy recovery systems: a suburban test case, Procedia Soc 87 (2013)
222–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.sbspro.2013.10.606.
[42] Acikbas, S.; Soylemez, M.T. Comparison of main energy efficiency strategies
implemented in a communication based train control system. Proceedings of 8th
Transport Research Arena TRA, Helsinki, Finland, 27-30 Apr 2020.
[43] C.S. Chang, S.S. Sim, Optimising train movements through coast control using
genetic algorithms, IEE Proc. Electr. Appl. 144 (1997) 1, https://doi.org/10.1049/
ip-epa:19970797.
[44] Keskin, K.; Karamancioglu, A. Energy efficient motion control for a light rail
vehicle using the big bang big crunch algorithm. 14-th IFAC Symposium on Control
in Transportation Systems, Istanbul, Turkey, 18-20 May 2016.
[45] Rangelov, V.N. Gradient modelling with calibrated train performance models.
Thirteenth International Conference on Design and Operation in Railway Engineering
(COMPRAIL 2012), New Forest, United Kingdom, 11-13 September 2012.
[46] Ning, J.; Long, F. Studies on the optimization of train using improved genetic
algorithm. 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and
Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), Chongqing, China, 25-26 March 2017.
[47] R. Woodward, E. Kelleher, Towards ‘smart lasers’: Self-optimisation of an ultrafast
pulse source using a genetic algorithm, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 37616, https://doi.org/
10.1038/srep37616.
[48] J. McCall, Genetic Algorithms for modelling and optimization, Journal of
Computational and Applied Mathematics 184 (1) (2005) 205–222, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cam.2004.07.034.
[49] R.C. Eberhart, J. Kennedy, A New Optimizer Using Particle Swarm Theory, in:
Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science. Japan: Nagoya, Piscataway, NJ,
1995.
[50] X. Ren, Y. Huang, M. Zhang, Train timetable optimization research based on PSO
energy-efficient operation strategy, in: Proceedings 2014 International Conference
on Informative and Cybernetics for Computational Social Systems (ICCSS), 2014,
pp. 134–138, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSS.2014.6961830.